Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

15,217 Excellent

About mfbukowski

  • Rank
    Wittgensteinian Pot-Stirrer

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Los Angeles Area
  • Interests
    My purpose in being here is to influence others to understand how the philosophy of Pragmatism relates to Mormonism. I found the church through my philosophical understanding of Pragmatism.

Recent Profile Visitors

8,550 profile views
  1. We are pretty diverse but rabid debates usually only happen between men and women. Welcome as again.
  2. Trust me he knows it. Welcome to the board you don't know us all quite yet. Nobody ever said there was a God that was both male and female, at least not in our gospel. Yes we have read the Proclamation.
  3. Not mysterious, at least to me. But what the culture has done to Mary M demonstrates to me why we don't know much about Heavenly Mother.
  4. 11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. 1 Cor 11.
  5. mfbukowski

    Left Hand

    I don't know. To me it is part of the language and connotations of English and probably most other languages. It's like asking why the word for "tree" is not "shlup". Why should those particular sounds make us think of that big beautiful thing growing over there? Why is "right" the right word anyway.? and why for heaven's sake do we spell it with a g? But then I have always been kind of a shlup lover. Linguistic connotations have been around for a long time. they are part of communication and why people who write will sit and ponder for the right word with the right nuance. I mean the left nuance. It really doesn't make much sense to try to change the connotation of a word, unless it is actually offensive to a class of people, but this case is entirely different. And for we LDS folks, I don't think we even need to question the importance of the "right angle" while all that symbolism is pretty well explained in the temple anyway. Sorry I just don't get it.
  6. mfbukowski

    Left Hand

    Here read this: http://www.ldsliving.com/Why-Members-Told-to-Take-the-Sacrament-by-the-Right-Hand-and-Whether-or-Not-It-Matters/s/89029 The use of the right hand and making covenants is pretty well established in tradition and in the Bible. Why is it good to be at the "right hand of God?' Why do we have a "right hand man" who is always there to be depended upon? Why does the first counselor sit on the right hand of the leader and the second counselor sit on the left hand side? Raise your left arm to the square in a court and see what happens. And of course then we should change the name of a right angle to a left angle. Let's use the left arm to sustain people. In fact then we should also stop calling people who are correct " right." But I think it is left to call them that. And then there is the Latin term "Dexter" from which we get the term "dexterity", which means "right", while the word for left is "sinister." And in political movements why is one side called the right-wing on the other left-wing? I think they should make the Democrats sit on the right side of Congress. I mean nowadays it is politically correct to think of Republicans as "sinister" anyway, right? Oops, I mean "left"? And then we have the Brits who clearly drive on the sinister side. We have to teach them to choose the right. But of course that is only meant as a left-handed compliment. If it doesn't matter what hand we use, then this thread should be over because after all it doesn't matter.
  7. His position on truth from the October conference, which everyone ignores because the rest of the talk was about gender. "Truth and the Plan". Because of the device I am on at the moment I cannot provide the link. You may disagree with him but he knows his philosophy. QUOTE: "Modern revelation defines truth as a “knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come” (Doctrine and Covenants 93:24). That is a perfect definition for the plan of salvation and “The Family: A Proclamation to the World.” We live in a time of greatly expanded and disseminated information. But not all of this information is true. We need to be cautious as we seek truth and choose sources for that search. We should not consider secular prominence or authority as qualified sources of truth. We should be cautious about relying on information or advice offered by entertainment stars, prominent athletes, or anonymous internet sources. Expertise in one field should not be taken as expertise on truth in other subjects. We should also be cautious about the motivation of the one who provides information. That is why the scriptures warn us against priestcraft (see 2 Nephi 26:29). If the source is anonymous or unknown, the information may also be suspect. Our personal decisions should be based on information from sources that are qualified on the subject and free from selfish motivations. I. When we seek the truth about religion, we should use spiritual methods appropriate for that search: prayer, the witness of the Holy Ghost, and study of the scriptures and the words of modern prophets. I am always sad when I hear of one who reports a loss of religious faith because of secular teachings. Those who once had spiritual vision can suffer from self-inflicted spiritual blindness. As President Henry B. Eyring said, “Their problem does not lie in what they think they see; it lies in what they cannot yet see.” The methods of science lead us to what we call scientific truth. But “scientific truth” is not the whole of life. Those who do not learn “by study and also by faith” (Doctrine and Covenants 88:118) limit their understanding of truth to what they can verify by scientific means. That puts artificial limits on their pursuit of truth. President James E. Faust said: “Those who have been [baptized] put their eternal soul at risk by carelessly pursuing only the secular source of learning. We believe that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has the fulness of the gospel of Christ, which gospel is the essence of truth and eternal enlightenment.” We find true and enduring joy by coming to know and acting upon the truth about who we are, the meaning of mortal life, and where we are going when we die. Those truths cannot be learned by scientific or secular methods."
  8. mfbukowski

    Left Hand

    For what it is worth, I could have done that easily. But she had more sense and made us wait a year. But at least I was right. Now 40 years together and I've never been happier. It happens!
  9. mfbukowski

    Left Hand

    This is the way I still think of it and it is a great phrase in my opinion-- It might be doing something which no one would ever see as "the appearance of evil" which nevertheless could be an "occasion of sin"- or a totally private act like going to a website one should not which no one knows about. Any circumstance that may lead to any private temptation which could result in sin is an "occasion of sin" whether it APPEARS evil or totally innocent. So if no one sees the transgression is it still an "appearance" of evil? Debatable at best. But it might very well be an "occasion of sin"
  10. It's only 2 meals and then Sunday dinner becomes a mini Ramadan break-the-fast celebration, so we get both done in 24 hours. Typical LDS efficiency.
  11. mfbukowski

    Left Hand

    We do our best in the temple to get every ordinance perfectly right every single time. Unfortunately it doesn't happen that way. often times we find mistakes were committed after the patron has left the building. in my opinion the purpose of these customs is to teach obedience and that exact us is important. Once that lesson is learned and done to the best of one's ability I think one must realize that the Lord is not a machine. It seems clear to me that elder Oaks was talking to the youth. It is important to learn these lessons. But no one is perfect and the substance of the issue is that we do our best and the atonement makes up for the rest. At least that is what we have been taught in Temple work. Ordinances are not invalidated by unintended errors. These are not magic incantations and this is not Harry Potter's world of magic spells. In my opinion if elder Oaks himself read this thread this would be his comment.
  12. Oops thanks, defining Spell "check" strikes again.
  13. The key here is what is meant by salvation and our peculiar definition of "damned" as synonymous with "dammed" as in stopping progression of a stream. Perhaps someone back at the beginning of the church was not so great at spelling. But yes we are all saved in the evangelical Christian sense, but what is missing is exaltation/theosis. I think this equivocation on these two words is behind this entire thread. Everyone is saved through the atonement but only LDS are able to be exalted. Damnation for us does not mean burning in hell forever. It's simply a stop in progression. I think we all assume that we are on the same page here when we are nowhere close to it in terminology. So in discussions with the Evangelicals they think that we are saying that if you are not LDS you will be burning in hell forever. Not at all. They will still get from God the reward that they desire which is being happy forever near to his presence. But that will be where their progression ends. That's fine for them because that's all they want. Our mission is to teach them effectively that they can have more but we have not done that due to these ambiguous usages of these common religious terms. In interfaith discussions we use that ambiguity in our favor, as did President Hinckley. No we do not teach much about the mechanics of exaltation because we don't know much about it. He was exactly right. So the common interpretation of President Hinckley is that we no longer believe in exaltation. It's just that pesky ambiguity kicking in again. We gotta fix that somehow.
  14. I am very sorry that you feel that I have mocked you. I I'm not sure how I have done that, but I hope I don't do it again. I used to live in San Diego and I actually worked on point Loma. I am very familiar with the Nazarene University and drove past it daily. I was a civilian employee on one of the Navy facilities there. Thanks for your explanation. I think overall we agree on original sin. My point is that I think that M. Is wrong in that essay you quoted. A core logical problem within Christianity is how three Persons can be seen as "one God." The ontological problems between Creator and created are not just going to go away and in my opinion no one is going to go back to the previous 2000 years of confusion. in my opinion defying the Godhead as unified by an "immaterial substance" is no explanation at all. I believe Mennonites subscribe to the Nicene Creed.? Do some have questions on how the Trinity is supposed to work logically? How do you handle those questions? Are those with questions satisfied by the answer that "the atonement is the most important doctrine and so we don't worry about that?" I consider myself a mystic because I think that there are no "true explanations" of how God works. all we have are human invented explanations.. Explaining God fully as he is simply can't be done. But then I don't subscribe to the Nicene Creed.
  15. mfbukowski

    Shrinking pains

    As we know especially on this board written communication can often be misconstrued. I I think it is better to lovingly put your hand on someone's shoulder and whisper in their ear "Thank you so much! It's time to bear your testimony." I did that a couple of times as bishop and it seemed to work fine. There was also another time when someone got extremely political and was using the pulpit nearly as one would for a political rally. I stopped it the same way and today I still have excellent relationships with those folks and no offense was taken.